COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Portugal, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, pluralism in the media, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Luxembourg, 13.7.2022  SWD(2022) 522 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report        Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report          The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2022) 500 final} - {SWD(2022) 501 final} - {SWD(2022) 502 final} - {SWD(2022) 503 final} - {SWD(2022) 504 final} - {SWD(2022) 505 final} - {SWD(2022) 506 final} - {SWD(2022) 507 final} - {SWD(2022) 508 final} - {SWD(2022) 509 final} - {SWD(2022) 510 final} - {SWD(2022) 511 final} - {SWD(2022) 512 final} - {SWD(2022) 513 final} - {SWD(2022) 514 final} - {SWD(2022) 515 final} - {SWD(2022) 516 final} - {SWD(2022) 517 final} - {SWD(2022) 518 final} - {SWD(2022) 519 final} - {SWD(2022) 520 final} - {SWD(2022) 521 final} - {SWD(2022) 523 final} - {SWD(2022) 524 final} - {SWD(2022) 525 final} - {SWD(2022) 526 final} - {SWD(2022) 527 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The  Government  is  undertaking  a  series  of  long-awaited  measures  to  address  efficiency 
challenges in the Portuguese justice system, in particular in administrative and tax courts, and 
the  creation  of  rapid  reaction  teams  in  these  courts  is  bringing  positive  results.  The 
finalisation  of  the  legislative  framework  of  the  High  Council  for  Administrative  and  Tax 
Courts  remains  pending.  The  use  of  digital  tools  continues  to  be  fostered,  including  in  the 
context of the Recovery and Resilience Plan. Measures to address the human resource deficit 
are under way, although some concerns remain in particular regarding non-judicial staff and 
public prosecutors. The Government and the High Council for the Judiciary continue to adopt 
new measures to address issues regarding the allocation of cases in courts, and new initiatives 
to  support  integrity  in  the  justice  system  have  been  initiated.  The  envisaged  reforms  to  the 
criminal  procedure  have  been  undertaken,  although  there  are  debates  on  whether  the  new 
rules  on  judicial  impediments  may  have  an  adverse  impact  on  the  efficient  treatment  of 
criminal cases.  

is  being 

The  National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  for  2020-2024 
implemented.  The 
operationalisation  of  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Mechanism  established  in  2021  is 
underway.  Concerns  regarding  the  lack  of  resources  for  the  prevention,  investigation  and 
prosecution of corruption-related cases remain, including in high-level cases. The legislative 
framework  to  fight  corruption  has  been  reinforced  with  particular  focus  on  increasing 
effectiveness  of  criminal  proceedings  at  the  level  of  prosecution.  Concerns  on  the  effective 
implementation of rules on conflicts of interests for high-level officials persist, though work 
is underway to tackle this issue. New amendments to the system of asset declaration extend 
and  strengthen  the  obligations  on  political  and  senior  public  office  holders.  Efforts  are 
ongoing to address the fact that the Transparency Entity established in 2019 to monitor and 
verify  these  declaratory  obligations  is  still  not  operational.  Legislation  on  the  protection  of 
whistleblowers was adopted. Legislation on lobbying is still to be adopted by Parliament. 

The media regulator plays a central role to monitor and support media freedom and pluralism, 
despite challenges in financial resources. Legislation on transparency of media ownership and 
institutional  advertising  remains  solid.  The  public  service  media  provider  is  independent, 
although there are challenges regarding its resources. Support measures granted in the context 
of the COVID-19 pandemic are reported to have had a positive effect on media, in particular 
on  local  and  regional  media,  but  concerns  remain  regarding  the  precariousness  of  the 
journalistic  profession.  The  legislative  framework  for  the  protection  of  journalists  remains 
strong but new alerts have been raised following cyber-attacks to media groups. A legislative 
provision on the protection against disinformation is under constitutional review. 

New measures to improve the transparency of law-making and the quality of legislation are 
being  implemented. The Constitutional  Court scrutinised decisions of the General  Electoral 
Board following the general elections. The emergency measures adopted in the context of the 
COVID-19 pandemic continue to  be scrutinised, and there are reflections on the need for a 
new  legal  basis  for  adoption  of  emergency  measures.  The  structure  of  the  Office  of  the 
Ombudsperson has been reformed, in order to better adapt to its mandate. Civil society space 
continues to be considered as open, and civil society organisations continue to be involved in 
Government initiatives. Nevertheless, they still face challenges related to access to financing 
and isolated instances of hostility and pressure occur. Government and Parliament are leading 
initiatives to promote a rule of law culture. 

1 

 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

In addition to recalling the commitments made under the National Recovery and Resilience 
Plan relating to certain aspects of the justice system, it is recommended to Portugal to:  

  Continue  the  efforts  to  ensure  adequate  human  resources  of  the  justice  system  and  to 
improve  its  efficiency,  in  particular  of  Administrative  and  Tax  Courts,  including  by 
finalising  the  legislative  framework  for  the  functioning  of  the  High  Council  for 
Administrative and Tax Courts. 

  Continue the efforts to strengthen the transparency of allocation of cases. 
  Ensure  sufficient  resources  for  preventing,  investigating  and  prosecuting  corruption 
including  by  ensuring  the  swift  operationalisation  of  the  New  Anti-Corruption 
Mechanism.  

  Ensure the start of operations of the Transparency Entity in view of effective monitoring 

and verification of asset declarations. 

  Continue  the  reforms  to  improve  the  transparency  of  law-making,  particularly  on  the 

implementation of impact assessment tools. 

2 

 
 
 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The  Portuguese  justice  system  comprises  the  Constitutional  Court,  the  Supreme  Court  of 
Justice  and  the  ordinary  courts  of  first  and  second  instance,  the  Supreme  Administrative 
Court,  and  the  administrative  and  tax  courts  of  first  and  second  instance,  and  the  Court  of 
Auditors1. The High Council for the Judiciary, the High Council for Administrative and Tax 
Courts and the High Council for the Public Prosecution exercise disciplinary action over the 
respective  magistrates  and  are  entrusted  with  relevant  managerial  functions.  Furthermore, 
they  are  competent  to  nominate,  transfer  and  promote  judges  and  prosecutors.  Judges  and 
prosecutors  are  appointed  by  the  respective  Council,  following  an  open  competition  and 
according  to  the  grades  obtained  in  mandatory  training  courses  at  the  Centre  for  Judicial 
Studies. The public prosecution service is independent from the judicial power and operates 
autonomously  from  the  executive  branch.  It  has  its  own  governance  system  in  which  the 
Prosecutor General’s Office is the highest body. Portugal participates in the European Public 
Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). The Bar Association is an independent legal entity governed by 
public law and, in the exercise of its public powers, performs regulatory functions. 

Independence  

The level of perceived judicial independence in Portugal continues to be average among 
the general public and low among companies. Overall, 47% of the general population and 
39%  of  companies  perceive  the  level  of  independence  of  courts  and  judges  to  be  ‘fairly  or 
very  good’  in  20222.  According  to  data  in  the  2022  EU  Justice  Scoreboard,  the  perceived 
judicial  independence  among  the  general  public  is  similar  to  the  level  of  2021  (48%)  and 
higher than in 2016 (33%). The perceived judicial independence among companies remains 
at the same level as in 2021. 

Measures  were  introduced  to  the  system  of  allocation  of  cases  in  courts,  in  order  to 
further  improve  its  transparency.  As  mentioned  in  the  2020  and  2021  Rule  of  Law 
Reports3, the system of allocation of judicial cases came under scrutiny following allegations 
of interference with the random allocation of cases. In this context, new measures to reinforce 
transparency continue to be implemented and came into practice in September 20214. These 
regulations, adopted by the High Council for the Judiciary, establish the principles, criteria, 
requirements  and  procedures  for  situations  of  modification,  reduction  or  suspension  of  the 
distribution of cases in ordinary courts5, and the criteria of transfer of judges, reallocation of 
cases and accumulation of functions6. Moreover, in August 2021, new legislation came into 
force introducing control mechanisms applicable to the electronic allocation of cases, both in 

1   Execution of criminal sentences courts, maritime courts, intellectual property courts, competition, regulation 
and  supervision  courts,  central  instruction  courts,  arbitration  tribunals  and  justices  of  the  peace  exist  and 
their number and jurisdiction is mainly established in their respective legal regimes (Law No. 62/2013, of 26 
August and Law No. 78/2001, of 13 July). 

2   Figures 50 and 52, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised 
as  follows:  very  low  (below  30%  of  respondents  perceive  judicial  independence  as  fairly  good  and  very 
good); low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 
3   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 3; 2021 Rule of Law 

Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 2. 

4   Information received from the High Council for the Judiciary in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
5   Regulation No. 269/2021, of 22 March. See also 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of 

law situation in Portugal, p. 2. 
6   Regulation No 371/2021, of 3 May. 

3 

 
                                                 
civil7  and  administrative  and  tax  courts8.  Among  the  control  mechanisms  introduced,  it  is 
foreseen that the allocation will be done daily, under the control of a presiding judge and in 
the presence of a prosecutor. In addition, the legal representatives of the parties have access 
to  the  detailed  minutes  documenting  the  allocation  acts9.  Although  the  new  legislation  still 
needs implementing regulation10, the new rules appear to be in line with European standards, 
which provide that the allocation of cases should follow objective pre-established criteria11, 
and have been positively assessed by stakeholders12.  

Initiatives  to  support  integrity  in  the  justice  system  continue  to  be  implemented.  The 
2021 Rule of Law Report took note that the High Council for the Judiciary had approved a 
regulation  on  declaratory  obligations13.  This  regulation  was,  however,  challenged  by  the 
Judges  Union  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  Justice,  through  an  interim  administrative 
action14.  The  Supreme  Court  of  Justice  upheld  the  action  in  part  and  ordered  the  High 
Council for the Judiciary to issue rules to remedy the illegalities found15. Consequently, the 
obligation to issue a single declaration16 by ordinary court judges has been repealed, and the 
High  Council  reported  that  all  declarations  made  by  judges  would  be  devoid  of  effect  and 
removed from databases17. The High Council has also prepared amendments to the regulation 
which, following public consultation18, were approved by the Council Plenary and came into 
force  on  8  April  202219.  Following  amendments  to  the  Law  on  declaratory  obligations  of 
holders of political and public office, judges and public prosecutors are now also subject to 
these  declaratory  obligations20.  The  amendments  also  introduced  the  criminalisation  of 
intentional  concealment  of income or assets acquired in  the exercise of public functions, in 
line  with  a  proposal  presented  by  the  Judges  Union21.  Regarding  the  Code  of  Conduct  of 
Prosecutors, it has been adopted by the High Council for the Public Prosecution22 and entered 
into force in April 202223. 

Reforms to the system of criminal courts and procedure have come into force, although 
their impact on the effectiveness of criminal justice is being debated. Concerns regarding 

7   Law No 55/2021, of 13 August. 
8   Law No 56/2021, of 16 August. 
9   Input from Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 4. 
10   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
11   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 24, and 

explanatory note 32. 

12   Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 9; Information 

received from the High Council for the Judiciary in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 

13   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 3. 
14   Contribution  from  Magistrats  Européens  pour  la  Démocracie  et  les  Libertés  (MEDEL)  –  Portugal  for  the 

2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 15. 

15   Supreme Court of Justice, judgment of 14 July 2021, Case No. 15/21.5YFLSB-A. 
16   Single declaration on income, assets, interests, incompatibilities and impediments. 
17   Contribution  from  European  Network  of  Councils  for  the  Judiciary  (ENCJ)  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law 

Report, p. 35.  

18   High  Council  for  the  Judiciary,  Public  Notice  No  220/2021,  of  9  November  2021;  Contribution  from 

European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 35. 

19   Regulation No 346/2022, of 7 April 2022, on declaratory obligations of magistrates. 
20   Law No 52/2019, of 31 July, approving the regime for the exercise of functions by holders of political and 

public office, as amended by Law No. 4/2022, of 6 January (see in particular Art. 13). 

21   Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 35. 
22   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 3. 
23   Deliberation No. 473/2022, of 14 April. 

4 

 
                                                 
the justice system’s capacity to efficiently treat complex criminal cases24, commonly referred 
to  as  ‘megaprocedures’,  prompted  debates  regarding  the  judicial  organisation  of  the 
instruction courts at public, political and judicial level. Consequently, the Parliament, upon a 
Government  initiative,  proceeded  with  the  reorganisation  of  the  Central  Court  of  Criminal 
Investigation25. This court absorbed the competences of the Criminal Investigation Court of 
Lisbon,  which  was  formally  disbanded.  The  Central  Court  of  Criminal  Investigation  now 
counts with a pool of nine judges, instead of two, which is seen as a positive development26. 
Moreover, in the context of the adoption of the legislation implementing the Anti-corruption 
Strategy27,  amendments  were  introduced  to  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  aiming  at 
simplifying  and  increasing  efficiency  in  the  processing  of  criminal  cases.  In  particular,  the 
rules on the separation and connection of criminal cases were clarified28, in order to avoid the 
limitations  identified  in  complex  criminal  cases29.  New  grounds  for  judicial  impediments 
were  also  introduced,  which  determine  that  the  judge  who  intervened  in  any  act  of  the 
investigative  phase  is  barred  from  intervening  in  the  subsequent  phases  of  the  procedure, 
including the trial and the appeal30. The new provision has been criticised, as it may lead to 
significant delays in procedures, since the judges who rendered any type of decision during 
the investigative phase will have to be replaced31. The situation may be particularly critical in 
single-judge  courts,  as  these  will  have  to  be  replaced  by  judges  from  courts  from  other 
judicial  districts.  In  order  to  minimise  the  adverse  impact  of  the  new  provision,  the  High 
Council  for  the  Judiciary  adopted  orientations  for  the  interpretations  of  the  new  rules  on 
impediments32. The Government, after specifying that the provision on judicial impediments 
did not reflect the wording in the Government’s initial legislative initiative33, has adopted a 
new legislative proposal, which has been presented to Parliament34. The High Council for the 
Judiciary has also announced it will present a proposal for an amendment to the provision35. 

The  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary  has  been  partially  renewed.  In  2021,  in  line  with 
constitutional  provisions36,  two  new  members  of  the  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary  were 
appointed  by  the  President  of  the  Republic,  one  of  the  new  members  being  a  judge  of  the 
Supreme Court of Justice. Consequently, the High Council for the Judiciary is  currently  de 
facto composed by a majority of judges, although not all of them were elected by their peers. 
There  are seven judges  elected by their peers, in  addition  to  one judge  appointed  ex officio 
(the  President  of  the  Supreme  Court)  and  one  currently  appointed  by  the  President  of 

24   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 4. 
25   Law No. 77/2021, of 23 November. 
26   Information  received  from  the  Council  for  the  Judiciary  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Portugal; 

Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 31.  

27   Law 94/2021, of 21 December. See Section II – Anti-corruption Framework. 
28   Art. 11, Law 94/2021, amending Art. 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
29   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
30   Article 40, Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended.  
31   Information  received  from  the  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary  and  the  Judges  Union  in  the  context  of  the 
country visit to Portugal; Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law 
Report, p. 34. 

32   High Council for the Judiciary, Plenary Decision of 8 March 2022. 
33   Information received  from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the  country  visit to Portugal.  Expresso 

(2022), ‘Ministry of Justice distances itself from the law on judicial impediments’. 

34   Legislative proposal No.  3/XV/1, submitted to Parliament on 12 April 2022 is currently being analysed by 
the  Committee  on  Constitutional  Affairs,  Rights,  Freedoms  and  Guarantees.  The  High  Council  for  the 
Judiciary and the Bar Association were consulted in the context of the legislative procedure. 

35   Information received from the High Council for the Judiciary in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
36   Art. 218 (a) of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic. 

5 

 
                                                 
Republic37.  This  is  considered  to  be  a  positive  development38.  It  should  be  noted  in  this 
context  that  it  would  be  necessary  to  have  two  additional  judges  elected  by  their  peers  in 
order  to  be  fully  in  line  with  European  standards39.  In  addition  to  concerns  expressed  by 
stakeholders regarding the Council’s composition40, the Council of Europe’s Group of States 
against  Corruption  (GRECO)  has  recommended  the  composition  of  the  Council  for  the 
Judiciary, as well as of the Council for the Administrative and Tax Courts to be amended in 
line with these standards41.  

The  finalisation  of  the  legislative  framework  regulating  the  functioning  of  the  High 
Council  for  Administrative  and  Tax  Courts  is  pending.  Pursuant  to  the  Statute  of  the 
Administrative and Tax Courts42, the structure and board of personnel of the High Council of 
Administrative and Tax Courts should be defined in legislation complementing the provision 
of  the  Statute.  However,  the  legislation  is  still  to  be  adopted  and  to  enter  into  force  since 
2004.  Consequently,  the  High  Council  continues  to  operate  with  the  support  of  the  human 
resources  of  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court,  and  of  members  of  the  Cabinet  of  the 
President  of  the  Supreme  Court43.  The  absence  of  this  legal  framework  implies  the  non-
provision  of the existence of a Vice-President and of a regime of full-time functions  of the 

37   The  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary  is  composed  of  the  President  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Justice  (who 
chairs), two members appointed by the President of the Republic, seven members elected by Parliament, and 
seven  judges  elected  by  their  peers  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  proportional  representation. 
Currently, the High Council for the Judiciary is composed by eight lay members and nine members who are 
judges. The High Council for Administrative and Tax Courts is composed of the President of the Supreme 
Administrative Court (who chairs), two members appointed by the President of the Republic, four members 
elected  by  the  Parliament  and  four  judges  elected  by  their  peers  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of 
proportional representation. See also 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Portugal, p. 2. 

38   Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 2 and 10. 
39   According  to  Council  of  Europe  recommendations,  not  less  than  half  the  members  of  Councils  for  the 
Judiciary  should  be  judges  chosen  by  their  peers  from  all  levels  of  the  judiciary  and  with  respect  for 
pluralism  inside  the  judiciary  (Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the 
Council of Europe, para. 27). See also CCJE, Opinion No. 24 (2021) on the evolution of the Councils for the 
Judiciary and their role in independent and impartial judicial systems, para. 29; Opinion No. 10(2007) of the 
Consultative  Council  of  European  Judges  (CCJE)  to  the  attention  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the 
Council of Europe on the Council for the Judiciary at the service of society, of 23 November 2007, paras. 15 
ff. 

40   Contribution  from  Magistrats  Européens  pour  la  Démocracie  et  les  Libertés  (MEDEL)  –  Portugal  for  the 

2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 11. 

41   GRECO  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Second  Interim  Compliance  Report,  recommendation  vi,  para.  45; 
GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round  – Interim Compliance Report, recommendation vi. para.  38. Portuguese 
authorities have referred that a number of factors mitigate this non-majority of judges in the composition of 
the Council for the Judiciary: i) the Council is always presided by a judge; ii) the President has legally a tie-
brake  vote; iii) only  the judges serve  their term in a  full-time  capacity; iv) the current  management of  the 
Council  is  delegated  to  the  Vice-President  (who  is  a  Supreme  Court  Judge  elected  by  all  judges);  v)  the 
members serve mandates with different lengths, which makes it very difficult to exercise a strong influence 
in  the  Council’s  composition  (GRECO  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Interim  Compliance  Report, 
recommendation vi. para. 42). Moreover, both the President and the Vice-President of the High Council for 
the  Judiciary,  to  whom  direction  and  management  powers  emanating  from  the  Plenary  are  delegated,  are 
judges; the direction and management of the High Council for the Judiciary’s services are also ensured by a 
judge secretary, under the direction and supervision of the president, or vice-president (by delegation of the 
president);  additionally,  the  members  of  the  High  Council  for  the  Judiciary  are  assisted  by  a  Cabinet 
composed of a chief of staff and four advisors, all of them judges; and finally, the inspectorate of the High 
Council for the Judiciary’s inspection services is composed exclusively of judges. 

42   Art. 79 (1), Law No. 13/2002, of 19 February. 
43   High Council for the Administrative and Tax Courts, Annual Report 2020, p. 5. 

6 

 
                                                 
members of the Council, as well as the absence of legal, technical and IT advisory cabinets, 
thus limiting the capacity to exercise of the broad mandate of the Council44. Currently, there 
are no legislative initiatives pending regarding the missing additional regulation45. 

Lawyers  raised  concerns  regarding  the  respect  for  their  professional  secrecy.  The  Bar 
Association  has  raised  concerns  that  new  obligations  to  communicate  to  the  tax  authority 
imposed  on  legal  counsels46  could  amount  to  a  violation  of  professional  secrecy47.  The  Bar 
Association submitted a complaint to the Ombudsperson48, who challenged the law before the 
Constitutional Court49. The case is currently pending before the Constitutional Court50.  

Quality  

The Government is addressing the shortage of human resources allocated to the justice 
system, although challenges remain. The expenditure on law courts has been increasing51. 
Responding  to  concerns  regarding  the  deficit  of  judges  and  prosecutors  in  the  justice 
system52,  the  Government  is  proceeding  to  increase  the  number  of  magistrates.  In  this 
context, 40 new judges of ordinary courts, 30 new judges of administrative and tax courts and 
65 new prosecutors initiated professional training in September 2021, and a new recruitment 
procedure for 40 judges of ordinary courts, 20 judges of administrative and tax courts and 65 
new prosecutors was launched in August 202153. The increase in judges of administrative and 
tax courts is expected to be sufficient to attain the number established in the legal framework 
for the first time since the creation of this jurisdiction54, albeit some concerns remain55 as to 
the  deficit  of  over  200  prosecutors56.  Moreover,  the  first  23  members  of  advisory  support 

44   Information received from the High Council for Administrative and Tax Courts in the context of the country 
visit to Portugal. See also High Council for the Administrative and Tax Courts, Annual Report 2020, p. 5. 
According  to  European  standards,  Councils  should  have  appropriate  means  to  operate  independently  and 
autonomously,  should  have  its  own  premises,  a  secretariat,  computing  resources  and  should  have  its  own 
staff according to its needs (CCJE, Opinion No. 24 (2021) on the evolution of the Councils for the Judiciary 
and their role in independent and impartial judicial systems, para. 29; Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of 
the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, paras. 37 and 38). 

45   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
46   Law  No.  26/2020,  of  21  July,  transposing  into  national  law  Directive  (EU)  2018/822  of  25  May  2018 
amending  Directive  2011/16/EU  as  regards  mandatory  automatic  exchange  of  information  in  the  field  of 
taxation to reportable cross-border arrangements. 

47   Contribution  from  the  Council  of  Bars  and  Law  Societies  of  Europe  (CCBE)  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law 

Report, p. 56. 

48   Bar  Association,  Press  release  of  20  September  2021.  Contribution  from  the  Council  of  Bars  and  Law 

Societies of Europe (CCBE) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 56. 

49   Pursuant to Art. 281 (1)(a) and (2)(d) of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic. The referral, submitted 
on 
https://www.provedor-
be 
jus.pt/documentos/2021_09_15_Lei%2026%20de%202020_requerimento%20ao%20Tribunal%20Constituci
onal.pdf.  

September 

consulted 

2021, 

can 

15 

on 

50   Information received from the Bar Association in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
51   Figures 34 and 35, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
52   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 5. 
53   Input from Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 6. See also Figure 36, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
54   Information received from the High Council for Administrative and Tax Courts in the context of the country 

visit to Portugal. 

55   Information  received  from  the  Cabinet  of  the  Prosecutor  General  and  from  the  Prosecutors  Union  in  the 
context of the country visit to Portugal; contribution from Magistrats Européens pour la Démocracie et les 
Libertés (MEDEL) – Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 12 and 13. 

56   Information  received  from  the  Cabinet  of  the  Prosecutor  General  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to 
Portugal; Public communication presented in the Congress of Public Prosecution, Vilamoura (Portugal), 25 
and 26 March 2022. 

7 

 
                                                 
teams to aid judges took functions in September 2021, and a new recruitment procedure to fill 
30 new vacancies was launched in October 202157. However, these support teams continue to 
exist  only  in  first  instance  of  ordinary  courts  despite  calls  for  the  need  to  extend  them  to 
administrative and tax courts58. Finally, challenges emerged for non-judicial staff in courts59 
where there are currently over 1 000 vacancies in first instance ordinary courts that have not 
been  filled60.  In  this  context,  it  is  to  be  noted  that,  according  to  European  standards,  a 
sufficient  number of  judges and  appropriately  qualified support staff should  be allocated to 
the courts61. 

Investment in the digitalisation of the justice system continues. Digital tools continue to 
be used in the justice system, with procedural rules allowing the use of digital technology in 
courts  for  civil,  commercial,  administrative  and  criminal  cases,  although  gaps  remain62. 
Digital technology is being used by courts and prosecution services for a significant number 
of procedural  acts63. Data  show that there are also  digital  solutions  available to  initiate and 
follow proceedings64, and videoconference tools have been widely used during the COVID-
19 pandemic65. New digital platforms with the aim to simplify the daily and managerial tasks 
of  magistrates  are  also  being  developed,  and  the  High  Councils  are  involved  in  their 
implementation66.  Moreover,  the  national  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan  (RRP)  includes  a 
component dedicated to the reform of the justice system, which focuses, among others, on the 
improvement of the use of digital tools in the justice system67. Portugal will also receive EU-
funded technical  assistance to  advance its user-driven justice modernisation  agenda and the 
development of key policy strategies68. 

Efficiency 

The  efficiency  of  the  justice  system  continues  to  face  challenges,  especially  in 
Administrative and Tax Courts. The 2021 Rule of Law Report took note of improvements 
regarding the efficiency of the justice system69. However, the positive trend was interrupted, 

57   Input  from  Portugal  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  6.  See  also  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country 

Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 5. 

58   Information  received  from  the  High  Council  for  the  Administrative  and  Tax  Courts  in  the  context  of  the 
country visit to Portugal; High Council for the Administrative and Tax Courts, Annual Report 2020, p. 8. It 
is  reported  that  the  creation  of  advisory  cabinets  in  Administrative  and  Tax  Courts  is  dependent  of  the 
adoption of the legislative framework regulating the functioning of the High Council for Administrative and 
Tax Courts (see Section I – Justice System – Independence). 

59   Information received from the High Council for the Judiciary, the Cabinet of the Prosecutor General and the 
Union  of  Judicial  Administrative  Officials  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Portugal;  Público  (2022), 
‘Courts in risk of rupture for lack of clerks’. 

60   Situation  on  31  March  2022;  Ministry  of  Justice,  Staff  map.  See  also  CEPEJ  (2020),  Country  profile 

Portugal - Scoreboard (2019 data). 

61   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 35. 
62   Figure 42, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
63   Figure 43, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
64   Figure 46, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
65   Input from Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 7. 
66   Ministry of Justice, Press release of 4 February 2022. 
67   Council implementing decision (10149/21) on the approval of the assessment of the recovery and resilience 

plan for Portugal, 6 July 2021. 

68   TSI  Project ‘Modernisation of the justice  sector in Portugal’. See also 2021 Rule of  Law  Report,  Country 

Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 6. 

69   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 7. 

8 

 
                                                 
with the disposition time for civil and commercial cases registering an increase in first70 and 
third instance71, and the rate of resolving decreasing for the third consecutive year and falling 
below  100%  in  first  instance72.  In  administrative  cases,  the  disposition  time  remains  high, 
having  registered  a  slight  increase  in  first  instance73,  and  further  increasing  in  second 
instance, reaching over 870 days74. Although the number of pending administrative cases in 
first instance remains high75, a significant improvement is to be noted as regards the rate of 
resolving, which is above 120%76. 

A working group has been created with the task of assessing and proposing strategies to 
increase the efficiency of Administrative and Tax Courts.  Stakeholders continue to raise 
concerns regarding the efficiency of Administrative and Tax Courts77. In order to reflect on a 
strategy  to  overcome  the  challenges  in  Administrative  and  Tax  Courts  and  increase  their 
efficiency,  the  Government  has  created  a  multidisciplinary  working  group.  The  working 
group presented two interim reports78, defining strategic objectives and proposing measures 
to  overcome  the  identified  challenges  regarding  the  efficiency  of  Administrative  and  Tax 
Courts. These are grouped according to five strategic axes: legislative amendments, judicial 
management, digital transformation, human resources, and optimisation of the functioning of 
higher  administrative  and  tax  courts79.  The  proposed  measures  have  not  yet  been 
implemented80. The Portuguese Recovery and Resilience Plan also includes measures aimed 
at  increasing  the  efficiency  of  administrative  and  tax  courts81.  According  to  European 
standards, the efficiency of judicial systems is an essential condition for legal  certainty and 
public confidence in the rule of law82.  

Measures  continue  to  be  implemented  to  increase  the  efficiency  of  the  justice  system. 
Portugal remains under enhanced supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council 
of  Europe  for  the  excessive  length  of  proceedings  before  both  civil  and  administrative 
jurisdictions83. In this context, on 24 June 2021, the Government adopted a new updated and 
consolidated  action  plan  presenting  measures  to  combat  the  excessive  duration  of 

70   280 days in 2020, from 200 days in 2019. Figure 7, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
71   126 days in 2020, from 104 days in 2019. Figure 8, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
72   Figure 12, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
73   Figure 9, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
74   Figure 10, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
75   Figure 16, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
76   Figure 13, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
77   Information received from the High Council for Administrative and Tax Courts and the Judges Union in the 
context of the country visit to Portugal. See also contribution from Magistrats Européens pour la Démocracie 
et les Libertés (MEDEL) – Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 13 and 14, and High Council for 
the Administrative and Tax Courts, Annual Report 2020, p. 7. 

78   Working group on Administrative and Tax Courts, First Interim Report of 23 November 2021 and Second 
Interim Report of 21 February 2022. See also input from Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 7. 
79   Input from Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 7, and Working Group on Administrative and Tax 

Courts, Second Interim Report, p. 3. 

80   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
81   In particular by setting up a legal framework promoting in and out-of-court settlements, the establishment of 
the  legal  framework  for  voluntary  administrative  arbitrage,  and  the  creation  of  specialised  chambers  in 
superior  courts  (Annex  to  the  Council  Implementing  Decision  on  the  approval  of  the  assessment  of  the 
Recovery and Resilience Plan for Portugal, p. 161). The respective milestones should be met during the first 
trimester of 2023. 

82   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 30. 
83   Committee  of  Ministers,  Supervision  of  the  execution  of  the  European  Court’s  judgments,  case  H46-20 

Vicente Cardoso group v. Portugal (Application No. 30130/10).  

9 

 
                                                 
proceedings84. While welcoming the efforts undertaken by the authorities, the Committee of 
Ministers  reaffirmed  its  concerns  regarding  the  worsening  of  the  situation  as  regards  the 
length  of  administrative  and  tax  proceedings85.  As  described  in  the  2020  and  2021  Rule  of 
Law  Reports86,  rapid  reaction  teams  were  created  to  deal  with  case  backlogs  in  tax  and 
administrative courts. The latest  data available show that these teams have already resolved 
63%  of  the  administrative  cases  and  over  58%  of  the  tax  cases  initially  assigned87.  It  is 
expected  that  the  teams  will  be  able  to  resolve  all  the  pending  cases  that  had  entered  the 
system before 2013 by the end of 202288.  

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The  institutional  anti-corruption  framework  in  Portugal  remains  generally  unchanged  since 
the  publication  of  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report.  The  Central  Department  of  Criminal 
Investigation and Penal  Action (DCIAP), established within the Public Prosecutors Service, 
is in charge of the investigation and prosecution of serious offences, including corruption and 
economic and financial crimes, and coordinates the investigations that are carried out by the 
National  Unit  for  Combating  Corruption  (UNCC),  an  investigative  unit  of  the  Criminal 
Police89. As regards the prevention of corruption, a National Anti-Corruption Mechanism was 
established in 2021; it will contribute to improve the prevention capacity. The Council for the 
Prevention of Corruption operates under the Court of Auditors. The Transparency Authority, 
established in 2019, has competences in monitoring and verifying declarations of assets and 
interests  of  political  office-holders  and  high-ranking  appointed  officials  but  is  not  yet 
operational, although efforts are being made in this regard.  

The  perception  among  experts  and  the  business  community  is  that  the  level  of 
corruption in the public sector remains relatively low. In the 2021 Corruption Perceptions 
Index  by  Transparency  International,  Portugal  scores  62/100  and  ranks  9th  in  the  European 
Union and 32nd globally90. This perception has been relatively stable over the past 5 years91. 
The  2022  Special  Eurobarometer  on  Corruption  shows  that  90%  of  respondents  consider 
corruption  widespread  in  their  country  (EU  average  68%)  and  44%  of  respondents  feel 
personally  affected  by  corruption  in  their  daily  lives  (EU  average  24%)92.  As  regards 
businesses, 85% of companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 63%) and 

84   Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers, DH-DD(2021)657: Communication from Portugal. 
85   Committee of Ministers, Decision CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-25, of 16 September 2021. 
86   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 8; 2020 Rule of Law 

Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 5. 

87   High Council for the Administrative and Tax Courts, Annual Report 2020, pp. 76-77.  
88   Information received in from the High Council for the Administrative and  Tax Courts in the context of the 

country visit to Portugal. 

89   The  UNCC  is  the  specialized  operational  unit  in  charge  of  investigating  corruption  offences  and  related 

crimes such as bribery or embezzlement of public funds, and has jurisdiction nationwide.  

90   Transparency  International  (2022),  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  2021,  pp.  2-3.  The  level  of  perceived 
corruption  is  categorised  as  follows:  low  (the  perception  among  experts  and  business  executives  of  public 
sector  corruption scores  above  79);  relatively  low  (scores  between  79-60),  relatively  high  (scores  between 
59-50), high (scores below 50). 

91   In 2017 the score was 63, while, in 2021, the score is 62. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last 5 years. 

92   Special  Eurobarometer  523  (2022).  The  Eurobarometer  data  on  citizens’  corruption  perception  and 
experience is updated every second year. The previous data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020). 

10 

 
                                                 
55%  consider  that  that  corruption  is  a  problem  when  doing  business  (EU  average  34%)93. 
Furthermore, 32% of respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter 
people  from  corrupt  practices  (EU  average  34%)94,  while  16%  of  companies  believe  that 
people  and  businesses  caught  for  bribing  a  senior  official  are  appropriately  punished  (EU 
average 29%)95. 

The  National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  for  2020-2024  is  being  implemented.  A  set  of 
legislative  measures  aimed  at  fighting  and  preventing  corruption  in  both  the  public  and 
private sectors has been adopted in order to implement the Anti-Corruption Strategy96. These 
include  instruments  to  fight  financial  crime,  active  and  passive  corruption,  and  support  for 
business  compliance  and  whistleblower  protection  as  well  as  a  wide  range  of  amended 
legislation in the area of criminal law and criminal procedural law, company law and crimes 
committed by public officials97. This legislative package was approved by Parliament in 2021 
and entered into force in March 2022. Its adoption opens the way to an implementation phase 
which will also depend on the resources to be devoted to the institutions responsible98. 

New legislative measures envisage to increase the effectiveness of the judicial system in 
handling  corruption  offences  and  to  accelerate  criminal  proceedings  at  the  level  of 
prosecution. An amendment to the criminal code extended the limitation period for crimes of 
corruption,  including  high-level  corruption,  to  15  years99.  The  practical  implementation  of 
this measure needs a close monitoring given the reported concerns as regards prescription of 
complex corruption cases due to delays in the investigation and prosecution phases100. A set 
of  legal  texts  has  been  amended  with  a  particular  focus  on  suspension  or  reduction  of 
sentences,  suspension  of  provisional  proceedings,  and  determination  of  criminal  liabilities, 

93   Flash  Eurobarometer  507  (2022).  The  Eurobarometer  data  on  business  attitudes  towards  corruption  as  is 

updated every second year. The previous data set is the Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

94   Special Eurobarometer 523 (2022).  
95   Flash Eurobarometer 507 (2022).  
96   Input from Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 9 and 12.  For example, this legislative package 
concerns amendments to the Penal Code, the Penal Procedure Code, the Commercial Companies Code, Law 
No. 34/87, of 16 July 1987 (which establishes the responsibility of political office holders regime), Law No. 
36/94, of 29 September 1994 (which establishes measures to combat corruption and economic and financial 
crime), Law No. 50/2007, of 31 August 2007 (which establishes the criminal liability regime for behaviours 
that may affect the truth, loyalty and correctness of the competition and its result in sporting activity), and 
Law No. 20/2008, of 21 April 2008 (which establishes the criminal regime of corruption in the international 
trade and the private sector). 

97   Art.  58,  Law  No.  68/2019,  of  27  August.  These  include  crimes  such  as  money  laundering,  corruption, 
embezzlement  and  economic  participation  in  business,  harmful  administration  in  an  economic  unit  of  the 
public sector, fraud in obtaining or embezzling a subsidy, subsidy or credit, economic and financial offences 
committed in an organised manner using computer technology, and economic and financial infringements of 
an international or transnational dimension. 

98   The strategy acknowledges the need to identify and analyse the reasons for delays in complex cases in order 
to better allocate resources. Information received by the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit 
to Portugal. 

99   Art. 118(1) (a) of the Criminal Code extends the limitation period of 15 years to the offences provided for 
Art. 20, Art. 23e(1) and Arts. 26 and 27 of Law No 34/87 of 16 July (embezzlement, economic involvement 
in  business,  abuse  of  power  and  breach  of  secrecy);  Arts.  10-A  and  12  of  Law  No  50/2007  of  31  August 
(undue offer or receipt of an advantage); Arts. 36 and 37 of the Military Justice Code (passive corruption for 
the commission of illegal acts and active corruption); In Art. 299 of the Criminal Code, where the purpose or 
activity of the criminal association is directed towards the  commission of one or  more crimes  for  which a 
period of 15 years is exceptionally provided for; crime of maladministration provided for in Art. 11 of Law 
No 34/87 of 16 July. Input from Portugal to the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 10. 

100  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 10. 

11 

 
                                                 
including  for  legal  persons101.  In  addition,  new  provisions  bring  clarity  to  the  concept  of 
political  office holder in the context  of criminal  law and introduce  a specific prohibition  to 
perform  official  duties  to  political  office  holders  who  commit  a  crime,  including 
corruption102.  A  new  law103  facilitates  the  use  of  financial  and  other  information  (such  as 
bank account information) by competent authorities for the purposes of preventing, detecting, 
investigating or prosecuting serious criminal offences.  

The  lack  of  resources  for  investigation  and  prosecution  of  corruption-related  offences 
remains a concern104. Stakeholders report that the lack of resources at the level of the police 
and prosecution services is an obstacle to prosecution of corruption-related cases105. The lack 
of expertise and trainings, low levels of digitalisation and difficult access to databases as well 
as  lack  of  financial  independence  are  also  reported  as  constraints.  As  reported  in  2021, 
challenges  remain  concerning  the  treatment  of  high-level  corruption  cases106.  The  lack  of 
statutory financial autonomy was publicly raised by the Prosecutor General as an obstacle to 
the overall independence of the Prosecution Office107. Both the Department of Investigation 
and  Penal  Action  (DIAP)  and  the  Central  Department  of  Investigation  and  Penal  Action 
(DCIAP),  established  within  the  Public  Prosecutor’s  Service,  also  raise  the  issue  of 
resources108.  The  lack  of  resources  is  also  reported  to  have  an  impact  on  the  quality  of  the 
investigations  and  prosecutions  of  corruption-related  cases,  causing  significant  delays, 
especially  in  complex  and  high-level  corruption  cases109.  The  problem  persists  despite  a 
slight  improvement  in  the  DCIAP’s  resources  in  2021  –  the  Central  Investigation  and 
Prosecution Department (DCIAP) has an overall table of 36 State Prosecutors specialising in 
the  investigation  of  the  organized  crime,  including  corruption  and  related  crimes.  The 
Research  departments  and  Criminal  Proceedings  (DIAP)  in  Porto,  Coimbra,  Lisbon  and 
Évora counts with 37 magistrates. The UNCC has 12 Investigation Units with a staff of 97 
criminal  investigators. However, in  addition  to  the investigators assigned to  the UNCC, the 

101  Input from Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 13. Law No 34/87, of 16 July, determining the new 
Measures for crimes of responsibility of political office holders bring clarity to the concept of political office 
holder for the purpose of criminal law (Arts. 1, 4, 5, 16, 17, 18, 19a, 23, 27, 28, 34, 35, 37 and 39 of Law No 
34/87 of 16 July are replaced); Law No 36/94 introducing new measures to combat economic and financial 
crime,  including  corruption,  embezzlement,  undue  influence  and  economic  participation  in  business. 
Amendments determine a responsible authority to carry preventive actions within the prosecutor’s office and 
criminal  police  unit  including  the  suspension  of  proceedings  and  establishment  of  injunctions  with  aim  to 
mitigate penalties (Arts. 1, 2, 8 and 9 of Law No 36/94 of 29 September are replaced); Law No 20/2008 of 
21  April  2008  establishing  the  new  criminal  regime  for  corruption  in  international  trade  and  the  private 
sector; Law No 50/2007 of 31 August 2007 establishing a new system of criminal liability for conduct liable 
to affect the truth, loyalty and correctness of competition and its outcome in sporting activity (Arts. 10 and 
13 of Law No 50/2007 of 31 August are replaced); Changes in the legislation on corruption-foreign bribery 
(2018): Arts. 5 and 10 were replaced. 

102  Art. 27-A, Law No. 34/87, of 16 July, establishing a prohibition to hold public office for a period from 2 up 

to 10 years. 

103  Law No. 54/2021 of 13 August 2022. Input from Portugal to the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 13. 
104  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 9. 
105  Information received from Transparency International, Office of the Prosecutor General, Judges Union, and 

Prosecutors Union in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 

106  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, pp. 9-10. 
107  Public  communication  presented  in  the  Congress  of  Public  Prosecution,  Vilamoura  (Portugal),  25  and  26 

March 2022.  

108  Público  (2021),  ‘DCIAP  director  pressures  Government  and  criticises  lack  of  resources’.  Public 
communication  presented  in  the  Congress  of  Public  Prosecution,  Vilamoura  (Portugal),  25  and  26  March 
2022.  

109  Information  received  from  the  Office  of  the  Prosecutor  General  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to 

Portugal.  

12 

 
                                                 
Criminal Police has 193 additional staff spread across the national territory. With a view to 
strengthening Justice Police resources, a course for 120 inspectors was completed in 2021; a 
course for 100 Inspectors will start in 2022 and a competition will take place for a further 70 
Inspectors,  preventing  a  gradual  increase  in  human  resources  in  UNCC110.  There  are  also 
concerns referring to the resources of the Inspectorate-General of Finance (IGF). The IGF has 
faced  a  progressive  decrease  of  resources  (from  2015  to  2021  there  has  been  a  21.5% 
reduction of staff and there was a 1.1% reduction of budget from 2020 to 2021)111, which is 
becoming  challenging,  especially  in  view  of  new  additional  activities  foreseen  under  the 
National Anti-Corruption Mechanism112. 

The general  regime for the prevention of corruption has been established and  work is 
ongoing  for  the  implementation  of  the  2021  National  Anti-Corruption  Mechanism, 
which  is  expected  to  be  operational  in  the  second  half  of  2022.  In  the  context  of  the 
implementation of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy113, new legislation has been adopted 
which creates a National Anti-Corruption Mechanism and establishes the general regime for 
the  prevention  of  corruption  and  conflicts  of  interest114.  This  general  regime  imposes  on 
private  companies,  public  undertakings  and  services  forming  part  of  the  direct  and  indirect 
administration  of  the  State115,  with  50  or  more  employees,  the  obligation  to  adopt  specific 
anti-corruption tools116. At the same time, it remains a concern that the scope of the regime 
will  be  too  narrow  in  practice  considering  the  overall  number  of  entities  under  50 
employees117, including Government bodies which will not be bound by the new rules. Once 
operational, the Mechanism will function as an independent body with initiating, controlling 
and sanctioning powers. It will also carry the task of implementing the preventive dimension 
of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy118. Overall, the need for more specialised personnel 
and robust monitoring structures remains a challenge119. While the operationalisation of the 

110  Input from Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 9. In the State Budget for 2022 there are also funds 
allocated  to:  i)  strengthening  human  resources  to  fight  corruption,  fraud  and  economic-financial  crime,  in 
particular in the Unit of Technical Assistance of the Attorney General's Office and in the Forensic Unit for 
Finance  and  Accounting,  the  Anti-Corruption  Unit  and  the  National  Criminal  Police  Cybercrime  and 
Technological  Crime  Unit;  and  ii)  strengthening  the  training  of  magistrates  and  other  stakeholders  in  the 
criminal investigation in the field of prevention and combat to corruption, fraud and economic and financial 
crime. 

111  Information received from IGF in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
112  Information received from IGF in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
113  National Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2020-2024.  
114  Decree-Law No. 109-E/2021, of 9 December. 
115  These  entities  include  private  companies  (with  the  exception  of  micro  and  small  enterprises)  the  State, 
autonomous  regions  (i.e.,  Azores  and  Madeira),  local  authorities  and  other  legal  persons  of  public  law 
(National anti-Corruption strategy 2020-2024, p. 41).  

116  Those  are:  risk  prevention  programmes,  codes  of  conduct,  reporting  channels  and  appropriate  training 
programmes for the prevention of corruption and related offences. In particular, the regime obliges entities to 
adopt  codes  of  conduct,  adequate  reporting  channels,  internal  control  systems  and  training  programmes 
focused on risk prevention. It also introduces fines for adminitrative offences up to EUR 44 891 81 for legal 
person and EUR 3 740 98 for natural persons for non-compliance with the regime. 

117  According to information provided by Statista the number of micro and small (<50) enterprises in PT is the 
larger: up to 902 856, compared to 5 688 Medium sized in 2021. Statista (2021), SMEs in Portugal 2021.  
118  The Mechanism will be an independent body which will integrate the Council for Prevention of Corruption 
and  continue  the  Council’s  task  of  ensuring  the  effectiveness  of  policies  to  prevent  corruption  with  the 
additional  power  to  sanction.  The  Mechanism  is  supposed  to  cooperate  and  support  anti-corruption 
authorities  including  the  Prosecutor’s  Office,  Criminal  Police  and  the  Court  of  Auditors.  The  tasks  of  the 
Mechanism will be carried by the Board composed of specialised officials. The activities of the Mechanism 
will be monitored by the Court of Auditors. Input from Portugal to the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 9. 

119  Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 

13 

 
                                                 
Mechanism  is  ongoing,  the  sanctioning  regime  under  the  general  regime  of  prevention  of 
corruption will only come into force by June 2023120.  

Concerns  remain  regarding  the  monitoring  of  rules  on  conflicts  of  interests  for  high-
level officials. While integrity rules are in place for Government officials121 and Members of 
Parliament122,  concerns  regarding  their  effective  implementation  remain  unaddressed123: 
GRECO called for adequate supervisory mechanisms, including sanctions for improper acts, 
which  are  not  envisaged  in  the  Code  of  Conduct  for  the  Members  of  Parliament124.  The 
monitoring work of the Parliamentary Committee on Transparency125 and Members’ Statute 
continues,  while  the  conclusions  of  the  assessment  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  conflict 
prevention  system  are  not  yet  available126.  As  regards  the  rules  on  ‘revolving  doors’,  there 
has  been  no  progress  in  addressing  the  issue  of  monitoring  breaches  of  post-employment 
restrictions, which creates concerns as to their enforcement127.  

New amendments to the system of asset declaration extend and strengthen declaratory 
obligations  for  political  and  senior  public  office  holders,  although  the  verification 
authority  is  not  yet  operational.  Complementing  the  existing  requirement128  to  submit  a 
single  consolidated  declaration  of  interest  and  assets,  new  regulations  foresee  penalties  for 
unjustified enrichment129. According to the law, as of 10 December 2021, declarations should 
include  a  detailed  description  of  any  asset  advantage,  reduction  in  liabilities  or  increase  in 
future  assets  when  the  value  exceeds  50  times  the  national  minimum  wage130.  The 
Transparency  Entity131  established  in  2019,  will  be  responsible,  once  operational,  for 
monitoring  and  verifying  the  asset  declarations  of  political  and  senior  public  officials132.  It 
was  initially  envisaged  to  be  set  up  in  2020,  but  it  is  not  yet  operational,  and  there  is  no 
timeline  for  its  entry  into  function133.  Efforts  are  currently  being  made  to  set  up  a  digital 

120  Art. 28(1), Decree-Law No. 109-E/2021, of 9 December. Information received from the Ministry of Justice 

in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 

121  Law 52/2019, of 31 July Since 2019, the system of incompatibilities for high-ranked officials was reviewed 
to broaden the scope of incompatible public functions to public undertakings and any other company where 
the State is shareholder - Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 184/2019. 
122  Law No. 7/93, of 1 March, Art. 20(1). Parliament, Resolution of the No. 210/2019.  
123  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, pp. 10 and 11. 
124  GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round - Second Interim Compliance Report, p. 6. 
125  In  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Portugal,  the  Commission  was  informed  by  the  Services  of  the 
Assembly of the Republic that the Committee has issued a report on the application of the Code and so far, 
no  breach  of 
the  website: 
in 
the  Code  has  been  verified.  The  report  should  be  published 
https://www.parlamento.pt/sites/COM/XIVLeg/14CTED/GTACC/Paginas/Composicao.aspx. 
126  Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
127  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 12. 
128  Art.  1,  Law  No.  69/2020,  of  9  November.  Additionally,  Law  No.  69/2020,  of  9  November,  established 
public  access  to  the  information  contained  in  the  register  of  interests  within  the  ‘Declaração  Única’, 
including posts, functions, and activities held in accumulation with the mandate, as well as those held in the 
3 previous years of high public and political officials. 

129  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Portugal,  pp.  11-12;  Law  No. 

4/2022, of 6 January 2022. 

130  New sanctions incorporate the penalties of imprisonment of up to 5 years for failing to submit a declaration, 
omitting income and properties, including any unjustified enrichment (Input from Portugal for the 2022 Rule 
of Law Report, p. 14).  

131  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 12. 
132  Art. 5 of Organic Law No. 4/2019, of 13 September, provides that until the establishment of the Entity for 
Transparency, single declarations of income, assets and interests continue to be filed with the Constitutional 
Court and scrutinised under the previous regime. 

133  Information received from the Constitutional Court in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 

14 

 
                                                 
platform to handle asset declarations134. The issue of the facilities where the headquaters of 
the Entity should be installed has not yet been completely resolved, although the Government 
has  provided  a  building  for  the  headquarters  of  the  Entity  for  Transparency,  and  the 
procedures for the necessary renovation works are advancing135. 

While legislation on lobbying remains to be adopted, the Government is implementing a 
system of  ‘legislative footprint’ to  monitor transparency in decision-making processes. 
There  was  no  agreement  reached  on  the  proposed  lobbying  legislation  that  was  under 
discussion  in  Parliament136  during  the  legislature  that  was  interrupted  in  December  2021. 
However, the Government has approved a resolution aimed at enhancing the transparency of 
the  decision-making  procedure,  by  implementing  a  system  of  ‘legislative  footprint’137.  This 
initiative  will  enable  citizens  to  monitor  interactions  between  decision-makers  and  interest 
representatives  throughout  the  legislative  procedures  due  to  the  mandatory  registration  of 
these interactions including from the drafting of laws and policies to their final approval138. It 
is  expected  to  bring  transparency  to  the  decision-making  process,  as  it  requires  interest 
representatives  to  be  registered  in  order  to  take  part  in  any  legislative  process.  The 
Government expects that bringing decision-makers closer to citizens and giving transparency 
to the origin and nature of policies is expected to be a positive step towards the regulation of 
lobbying. GRECO has stressed the need to clarify the scope of permissible contacts between 
members of Parliament and third party interests, which remains to be addressed139. However, 
the  scope  of  the  contacts  allowed  between  Members  of  the  Parliament  and  third  interest 
parties  is  defined  by  the  Portuguese  Constitution140,  imposing  on  the  Members  of  the 
Parliament a set of duties in the exercise of their mandate141. 

New legislation on the protection of whistleblowers was adopted.  The new rules142 were 
introduced  on  20  December  2021  with  the  aim  to  align  national  legislation  with  the 
Whistleblowers  Directive143  and  further  improve  the  legal  framework144.  Overall,  in  2020, 
there  was  a  slight  decrease  of  whistleblowers  complaints  (18.3 %  less  than  in  2019  and 
35.2 % less than in 2018)145. The analysis of the complaints submitted through the application 

134  Information received from the Constitutional Court in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
135  Information received from Portugal as a follow-up to the country visit. 
136  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 12. 
137  Council of Ministers Resolution No. 143/2021, of 3 November.  
138  See also Section IV. 
139  GRECO  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  -  Second  Interim  Compliance  Report,  p.  4.  It  is  the  competence  of  the 
Committee  for  the  Transparency  and  Statute  of  the  Members  of  Parliament  (CTED)  to ensure  compliance 
with the rules mentioned, and to this end, it may carry out inquiries into facts which may constitute serious 
irregularities committed in breach of the duties of the Members of the Parliament, either at the request of the 
Members  of  the  Parliament  ex-officio  or  by  determination  of  the  President  of  the  Parliament  (please  see 
article 27-A(j) of the Statute of the Members of Parliament). 

140  Arts. 155 and 159. See also Art. 14 of the Statute of the Members of Parliament and Arts. 3 to 9 of the Code 

of Conduct of Members of Parliament. 

141  Art. 14(2) of the Statute of the Members of Parliament. 
142  Law No. 93/2021, of 20 December. 
143  Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union Law. 
144  The  rules  introduce  measures  on  prohibition  of  retaliation  as  well  as  establishment  of  specific  reporting 
channels and the establishment of procedures for the analysis of reports that ensure the confidentiality and 
security  of  information.  Also,  further  enshrining  measures  to  protect  and  support  whistleblowers  were 
introduced. 

145  In 2020, the number of complaints received, including through this system, was 1.607, of which 603 were 
submitted  by  identified  complainants  (37.5 %).  Information  received  from  the  Ministry  of  Justice  in  the 
context of the country visit to Portugal. 

15 

 
                                                 
resulted  in  the  opening  of  232  investigations  and  18  preventive  investigations,  with  507 
complaints being sent to other bodies and 785 being closed146. 

Several  institutions  continued  to  monitor  corruption  risks  related  to  the  measures 
adopted  in  the  context  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  Court  of  Audit  monitored  the 
implementation of the emergency law measures147. As a result, new reports were issued148. It 
is  not  yet  clear  if  the  Council  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  recommendation  on  the 
Prevention of Risks of Corruption and Related Infringements149 was followed in practice by 
all the public bodies and entities intervening in the management or control of public money 
and  other  public  values  to  which  it  was  addressed150.  The  InspectorateGeneral  of  Finance 
issued  an  audit  report  about  the  measures  taken  to  support  the  media  sector  during  the 
COVID  19  pandemic,  and  published  an  e-book151  on  best  practices  and  lowering  the  risks 
linked to corruption in the area of public procurement which is overall regarded as a high-risk 
area152.  

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

The fundamental  principles  underpinning media  freedom and pluralism  are  anchored in  the 
Portuguese Constitution153 and a comprehensive legal framework exists to protect journalists 
in the exercise of their profession154. The establishment of an independent regulatory body is 
also  mandated  in  the  Constitution155.  The  revised  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive 
(AVMSD)  was  transposed  in  2020156.  No  major  legislative  developments  have  taken  place 
since the publication of the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

The  Regulatory  Authority  for  the  Media  continues  to  play  a  central  role  as  regards 
media  freedom  and  pluralism  but  faces  some  challenges  regarding  resources.  The 
regulatory  authority  (Entidade  Reguladora  para  a  Comunicação  Social,  ERC)  is  fully 
independent157. It monitors all entities that pursue media activities in Portugal158 and ensures 

146  In  2020,  the  number  of  investigations  opened  on  the  basis  of  complaints  submitted  in  the  application 
corresponded to 14.4 % of the complaints registered and the preventive investigations amounted to around 
1.1 %.  These  percentages  for  investigations  show  a  slight  increase  compared  to  those  in  2018  and  2019 
(12.7 %), confirming the downward trend in the number of preventive investigations initiated (1.8 % in 2018 
and  1.6 %)  in  2019.  In  2019,  249  investigations  and  31  preventive  investigations  were  opened,  while  787 
complaints were sent to other entities and 896 were closed (information received from the Ministry of Justice 
in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Portugal).  The  data  refers  to  numbers  relating  to  the  channel  for 
complaints set up by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 

147  Information received from the Court of Audit in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
148  Court  of  Audit,  Risks  in  the  use  of  public  resources  in  the  management  of  emergencies  (COVID-19);  In 
February  2022  the  Court  of  Audits  published  a  report  about  fraud  and  non-compliance  which  highlights 
important limitations in monitoring. 

149  Council  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  (2020),  Recommendation  -  Prevention  of  Corruption  Risks  and 

Related Infringements as part of the response measures to the pandemic outbreak of COVID-19.  

150  The recommendation highlights the need for all decision-makers and public officials to maintain the highest 
levels of transparency, ethics and integrity, and asked for the adoption of measures to prevent and mitigate 
corruption risks in the exercise of their public activities. 

151  IGF, Autoridade de Auditoria, Gestão dos Riscos na Contratação Pública. 
152  Information received from the IGF in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
153  Arts. 37 and 38, Constitution of the Portuguese Republic. 
154  Portugal ranks 7th in the 2022 Reporters without Borders World Press Freedom Index compared to 9th in the 

previous year. 

155  Art. 39, Constitution of the Portuguese Republic. 
156  Law 74/2020, of 19 November. 
157  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Portugal, pp. 6-7. 

16 

 
                                                 
a series of essential tasks as foreseen in its constitutional mandate159. During 2021, it received 
EUR 4 000 000 (in arrears for the 2015-2019 contributions due by the telecom regulator) and 
has opened the recruitment for three new posts. However, given the extent and importance of 
its mission, there are concerns that the ERC may be underfunded160. 

The  comprehensive  legislative  framework  regulating  the  transparency  of  media 
ownership  has  been  further  extended.  A  solid  legal  framework  is  in  place  regarding  the 
transparency  of  ownership  across  all  media  markets,  including  online.  The  Constitution 
requires this transparency and mandates ERC to monitor it in implementation of the specific 
law  that  regulates  this  matter161.  In  January  2022,  regulatory  provisions  entered  into  force, 
extending to on-demand services and video sharing platforms the requirement to register a set 
of  information  with  the  Regulatory  Authority  for  the  Media.  Consequently,  legislation  on 
media transparency will be applicable  to  on-demand services providers162. The 2022 Media 
Pluralism  Monitor  report  for  Portugal  (MPM  2022)  continues  to  register  low  risk  in 
transparency of media ownership163. It however notes some exceptions where the law is not 
always  effective164.  Some  entities  show  low  levels  of  transparency,  and  it  is  difficult  to 
identify  whether  these  cases  are  sanctioned  in  practice165.  Moreover,  the  Transparency 
Portal166 does not always provide the required information on some companies167. 

Access to information and documents held by public authorities is safeguarded through 
specific  legislation.  This  legislation  aims  at  facilitating  the  performance  of  journalistic 
functions.  While  the  Constitution  guarantees  the  right  of  journalists  to  access  sources  of 
information168,  rules  of  general  application169  regulate  access  to  administrative  documents 
and  administrative  information.  Non-respect  of  the  right  of  access  to  administrative 
documents can be appealed to the Administrative and Tax Courts. A complaint may also be 
filed  before  the  independent  administrative  Commission  for  Access  to  Administrative 
Documents, but opinions on complaints are not binding on public institutions. 

The public service media provider is independent, but there are challenges regarding its 
resources.  Rádio  e  Televisão  de  Portugal  (RTP),  the  public  service  media  provider,  is 
established  by  law170.  Its  internal  governance  organs  are  the  Independent  General  Council 
(IGC) and the Management Board (MB). The IGC is a general overseeing body and is mainly 
responsible  for  choosing  the  MB  and  monitoring  the  adequacy  of  its  strategic  project.  It  is 

158  Art. 6, Law No. 53/2005 (Statutes of ERC). See also 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule 

of law situation in Portugal, p. 9. 

159  Art. 39, Constitution of the Portuguese Republic. 
160  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Portugal, pp. 6, 7 and 21. 
161  Law No. 78/2015, of 29 July. 
162  Regulatory Decree 7/2021, of 6 December. 
163  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Portugal, pp. 8 and 12. 
164  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Portugal, pp. 12-13. 
165  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Portugal, p. 13. 
166  The Transparency Portal was created by ERC on December 2019 in order to aggregate all the information on 

media ownership and make it available to the public. 

167  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Portugal, p. 13. 
168  Article 38(2)(b), Constitution of the Portuguese Republic. The Statute of Journalists, approved by Law No. 

1/99, of 13 January, contains provisions aimed at ensuring this right (Art. 8). 

169  Law No 26/2016, of 22 August. 
170  Law No. 8/2007, of 14 February. 

17 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
composed  of  six  members171  nominated  for  6  years,  and  it  does  not  have  management 
responsibilities. The MB is composed of three members nominated by the IGC, taking office 
after  being  heard  by  the  Parliament.  The  law  establishes  the  conditions  under  which  the 
members of the IGC  and the MB could be deposed. Additionally, the law establishes a 30-
member Opinion Council (OC), whose members are elected for a four-year period, which is 
renewable. 10 of them are nominated by the Parliament, and the remaining 20 by a variety of 
civil  society  organisations.  The  OC  is  meant  to  act  as  a  link  for  RTP  to  the  interests  of 
Portuguese  society  and  to  monitor  that  it  fulfils  its  obligations  as  a  public  service.  RTP  is 
financed  by  an  audiovisual  contribution  tax  (82%),  and  publicity  and  sales  of  programmes 
(18%)172. However, given that RTP offers a wide and diverse spread of services and has plans 
for some new channels, concerns were voiced regarding insufficient financing173. 

There are concerns regarding the precariousness of the journalistic profession. Despite 
some improvement compared to 2020, the general situation of professionals in the Portuguese 
media  is  still  relatively  challenging,  with  the  small  advertising  market  not  being  enough  to 
support all operators in the market174. This translates into downward pressure on salaries and 
indirectly  affects  editorial  freedom  for  journalists,  except  in  the  public  service  media175. 
Regarding  the  economic  support  measures  in  the  framework  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic, 
these  are  reported  to  have  had  a  positive  effect  on  media,  as  stakeholders  noted  that  these 
exceptional support measures taken by the Government (advance purchase of an institutional 
advertising) had the welcome effect  that, for the first  time, institutional advertising reached 
local and regional media significantly (25%)176. 

Standards  for  the  protection  of  journalists  remain  high.  As  mentioned  in  previous 
editions  of  the  Rule  of  Law  Report177,  the  Criminal  Code,  in  particular  following  the 
amendments  introduced  in  2018178,  gives  journalists  protection  in  the  exercise  of  their 
profession.  As  in  previous  years,  the  MPM  2022  considers  this  an  area  of  low  risk179.  The 
European Court of Human Rights  found in  January 2022180 that the 2012 conviction  of the 
journalist  Freitas  Rangel  for  statements  about  associations  of  judges  and  prosecutors 
breached  the  European  Convention181.  Since  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  the  Council  of 
Europe  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  has 

171  Two nominated by the Government, two nominated by the Opinion Council (see below) and two co-opted 

by the first four. 

172  Information  received  from  RTP  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Portugal;  RTP,  2020  Financial 

Statement Report, p. 153. 

173  Information received from RTP in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
174  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Portugal, p. 6. 
175  Information received from the Journalists’ Professional License Committee and the Journalists Union in the 

context of the country visit to Portugal. 

176  Information received from the Journalists’ Professional License Committee and the Journalists Union in the 

context of the country visit to Portugal. 

177  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 14; 2020 Rule of Law 

Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 11. 

178  Which  include  journalists  in  the  categories  of  professions  granted  enhanced  protection,  and  qualified 

aggressions against journalists as ‘public crimes’. 

179  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Portugal, pp. 7, 9 and 21. 
180  Judgment  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  of  11  January  2022,  Freitas  Rangel  v.  Portugal, 

78873/13. 

181  The  Court  found  in  particular  that  the  fine  and  the  damages  had  been  wholly  disproportionate  and  had  to 
have had a chilling effect on political discussion. The domestic courts had failed to give adequate reasoning 
for such interference with the applicant’s free speech rights, which had not been necessary in a democratic 
society. 

18 

 
                                                 
registered two alerts for Portugal182. The first one concerns a court proceeding presented by 
an  Angolan  politician,  seeking  important  financial  compensation  for  his  name  appearing  in 
the Portuguese edition of a book on corruption written by a British journalist. The Portuguese 
Government has duly replied to the alert183. The second concerns the 2 January 2022 cyber-
attacks  on  the  websites  of  the  newspaper  Expresso  and  all  the  channels  of  the  SIC  TV 
station184.  The  attackers  demanded  a  ransom  to  be  paid.  The  OSCE  Representative  on 
Freedom  of  the  Media  expressed  concern  about  these  acts,  stressing  that  they  constituted  a 
clear violation of the right to freedom of expression and that the spreading false information 
illegally through these channels has a clear intent to use the reach of media to cause chaos185. 
The  incident  is  being  investigated  by  national  law  enforcement  and  Portugal’s  National 
Cybersecurity  Centre.  Weeks  later,  similar  attacks  took  place  against  another  media  group 
(Cofina).  The  Journalist  Union,  the  Journalists’  Professional  License  Committee  and  ERC 
condemned these attacks and urged the authorities to investigate them186. 

A legislative provision on the protection against disinformation is under constitutional 
review.  Parliament  adopted  in  May  2021  the  Portuguese  Charter  of  Human  Rights  in  the 
Digital Age187. Its Article 6188, providing for the possibility to create registered fact-checking 
structures  overseeing  registered  media  outlets,  received  criticism  and  opposition  from 
stakeholders,  for  its  possible  impact  on  the  rights  to  the  freedom  of  expression  and 
information189.  This  led  the  President  of  the  Republic  to  request  the  assessment  of  the 
constitutionality of that rule for violation of the right to freedom of expression190. The case is 
currently pending before the Constitutional Court. 

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Portugal  is  a  representative  democratic  republic  with  a  directly  elected  President  and  a 
unicameral  Parliament.  The  President  of  the  Republic,  elected  by  direct  popular  vote,  has 
significant  constitutional  and  political  powers,  including  the  competence  to  dissolve 
Parliament191.  The  Prime  Minister  has  the  competences  to  direct  the  Government’s  general 
policy  and  to  coordinate  and  orient  the  actions  of  all  the  Ministers192.  Parliament  and 
Government share legislative competence. The Members of Parliament and the Parliamentary 
Groups,  the  Government,  the  Regional  Assemblies  and  a  group  of  at  least  20 000  citizens 
have the right of legislative initiative. The Constitutional Court, which is part of the judiciary, 
is competent to review the constitutionality of laws and to control the constitutionality of the 

182  Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, Portugal. 
183  Alert  No.  192/2021,  Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of 

journalists, Portugal. 

184  Alert  No.  40/2022,  Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of 

journalists, Portugal. 

185  OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Press Release of 13 January 2022. 
186  Journalists Union, Press releases of 3 January 2022 and 10 February 2022; Journalists’ Professional License 

Committee, Press release of 12 January 2022; ERC, Press release of 12 January 2022. 

187  Law No. 27/2021. 
188  In particular, Art. 6(6), providing for the creation of fact-checking structures by duly registered media and 

encouraging the award of quality seals by trusted entities endorsing with public utility status. 

189  Journalists Union, Press release of 9 June 2021; Journalists’ Professional License Committee, Complaint to 

the President of the Republic and to the Ombudsperson of 30 June 2021. 

190  President of the Republic, Press release of 29 July 2021. 
191  Art. 133(e), Constitution of the Portuguese Republic. 
192  Art. 201, Constitution of the Portuguese Republic. 

19 

 
                                                 
omission  to  adopt  the  necessary  legislative  measures  to  execute  constitutional  norms193;  it 
also  has  other  important  competences,  including  on  electoral  matters  and  control  of  asset, 
interest  disclosure  and  incompatibility  declarations194.  The  independent  Ombudsperson  is 
tasked with safeguarding and promoting the freedoms, rights and guarantees of citizens, and 
has the right to challenge the constitutionality of laws. 

Parliament  and  Government  are  implementing  measures  to  improve  the  quality  of 
legislation  and  increase  the  transparency  of  the  legislative  procedure.  Following  the 
approval  of  the  new  Rules  of  Procedure  of  Parliament195,  in  July  2021,  the  Conference  of 
Leaders196  adopted  guidelines  on  the  interpretation  of  some  of  these  new  rules.  By  setting 
clear  timelines  for  the  debates  on  legislative  proposals,  and  clarifying  the  deadlines 
applicable  to  fast-track  procedures197,  these  rules  aim  at  reinforcing  the  quality  of 
parliamentary legislation and the procedure’s transparency, in particular by allowing a better 
knowledge  of  the  context  of  the  bills  prior  to  their  discussion198.  Regarding  the  legislative 
power entrusted to the executive, the national anti-corruption strategy envisages measures to 
improve  the  transparency  of  the  legislative  procedure199.  In  this  context,  the  Council  of 
Ministers approved a resolution200 that implements a system of ‘legislative footprint’ within 
the  governmental  legislative  procedure,  establishing  the  mandatory  recording  of  any 
intervention of  external  entities in  the legislative process, from  the  stage of conception and 
drafting of the legislative act until its final approval201. The resolution also approved a pilot-
project  which  will  allow  the  follow-up  by  citizens  of  all  the  interactions  throughout  the 
legislative  processes  initiated  by  the  Government202.  Although  there  are  also  efforts  to 
improve  the  use  of  both  ex  ante203  and  ex  post  Regulatory  Impact  Assessments  (RIAs),  ex 
post  RIAs  remain  rare,  with  only  two  currently  underway204.  Public  consultations  are  not 
envisaged  as  part  of  RIA  procedure.  Under  a  project  financed  by  the  EU  through  the 
Technical  Support  Instrument,  the  use  of  artificial  intelligence  in  performing  RIAs  will  be 
explored205. The quality of law-making is an important factor for investor confidence and a 

193  Art. 223(1), Constitution of the Portuguese Republic. 
194  Art.  223(2)(c),  (g),  (h),  Constitution  of  the  Portuguese  Republic;  Arts.  11-A  and  106  to  110,  Law  on  the 

Constitutional Court. 

195  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 16. 
196  Organ composed by the President of Parliament and the presidents of parliamentary groups. 
197  In  particular,  the  guidelines  clarify  that  the  responsible  parliamentary  committee  shall  pass  its  reasoned 
opinion and send it to the President within a time limit of 30 days from the date of the admissibility order, 
and bills shall only be discussed and put to the vote on the general principles in the plenary session after the 
time limit of 30 days following the date of the admissibility order and not the date of their submission as a 
bill. Moreover, it determines that proposers of the bill in fast-track procedures may only replace the text of a 
bill  up  to  48  hours  before  its  discussion  on  the  general  principles,  and  the  replacement  must  be  notified 
immediately to parliamentary groups and other members of Parliament. After the discussion, the text can no 
longer be replaced. 

198  Information received from the Services of the Assembly of the Republic in the context of the country visit to 

Portugal. 

199  See Section II – Anti-corruption framework. 
200  Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 143/2021, of 3 November. 
201  Input from Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 14 and 26. 
202  Input from Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 14. 
203  According to the regime on the functioning and organisation of the current Government, draft Government 
legislative acts should be subject to a prior assessment of legislative impact, seeking to estimate the variation 
in benefits and charges imposed on the life of persons and activities of enterprises, in particular small and 
medium-sized enterprises, as well as other non-economic impacts (Art. 53(1), Decree-Law No. 32/2022, of 9 
May). 

204  Information received from UTAIL in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
205  Project supported by European Commission (DG REFORM). 

20 

 
                                                 
reason  for  concern  about  effectiveness  of  investment  protection  for  25%  of  companies  in 
Portugal206. 

The  Constitutional  Court  reviewed  the  electoral  process.  Following  the  rejection  by 
Parliament of the State Budget Bill in October 2021, the President of the Republic dissolved 
the Parliament and called general elections207, which took place on 30 January 2022. In the 
context  of  the  counting  of  the  votes  of  the  Europe  electoral  circle208,  the  General  Electoral 
Board  declared  the  votes  of  150  voting  assemblies  of  this  electoral  circle  to  be  null  and 
void209. Consequently, the Constitutional Court was seized210. In a judgment of 15 February 
2022211,  the  Constitutional  Court  partially  upheld  the  appeal,  revoking  the  decision  of  the 
General Electoral Board of the Europe electoral circle. The Constitutional Court declared null 
the votes of the voting assemblies affected by the decision, and determined the repetition of 
the  vote  in  the  concerned  voting  assemblies.  The  Constitutional  Court  affirmed  that  the 
constitutional  control  envisaged  in  electoral  matters  is  not  primarily  intended  to  safeguard 
individual rights, but to ensure the legality of the electoral process, which is essential for the 
democratic legitimacy of the political power212. The new parliamentary term started after this 
review  and  the  subsequent  repetition  of  the  vote213.  During  the  dissolution  period214, 
Parliament ceased its regular functioning, with no plenary sessions taking place, and meetings 
of Parliamentary Committees limited to those necessary for the final drafting of the bills215. 
Consequently, the legislative activity decreased significantly in the first trimester of 2022.  

The  emergency  measures  adopted  in  the  context  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  were 
subject  to  scrutiny,  and  reflections  are  ongoing  on  a  new  legal  basis  for  emergency 
measures. While the state of emergency ceased to apply in April 2021, the Government has 
declared  since  then  situations  of  calamity,  alert,  and  contingency  at  different  occasions216. 
Currently, the situation of alert remains applicable217. Since March 2020, the Government has 
submitted  to  Parliament  26  reports  containing  the  relevant  information  on  the  strategy  to 

206  Figure 55, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
207  Decree of the President of the Republic No. 91/2021, of 5 December.  
208  Art. 12(4), Law No. 14/79, of 16 May, as amended. Voter residing abroad are group in two electoral circles, 

one of them covering all European countries. 

209  This decision was prompted by the fact that local Electoral Boards decided to accept as valid votes that were 
not accompanied by the photocopy of the identity document,  as  prescribed in law (Art.  79-G (6) Law No. 
14/79,  of  16  May,  as  amended),  consequently  considering  them  together  with  the  remaining  votes  for  the 
final counting. The General Electoral Board considered that such votes should be considered null and void 
and,  given  that  it  was  no  longer  possible  to  identify  the  votes  that  had  been  incorrectly  considered  valid, 
declared the nullity of all votes. The decision affected a universe of approximately 160 000 votes. 

210  Case No. 180/2022. The Constitutional Court is competent to decide on electoral matters pertaining to the 

parliamentary elections (Art. 117, Law No. 14/79, of 16 May, as amended).  

211  Constitutional Court, judgment 133/2022 of 15 February 2022, Case No. 180/2022.  
212  Constitutional Court, judgment 133/2022 of 15 February 2022, Case No. 180/2022, para. 15. 
213  On 12 and 13 March in person, and until 23 March for postal voting. 
214  From 5 December 2021 to 28 March 2022. 
215  Exceptionally, the Parliamentary Committee on Transparency and Members’ Statute and the Committee on 
European  Affairs  were  allowed  to  meet,  subject  to  authorisation  by  the  President  of  Parliament.  The 
Standing Committee, chaired by the President of Parliament, Vice-Presidents and members appointed by all 
parties  represented  in  Parliament,  which  replaces  the  plenary  when  the  Parliament  is  not  in  full  session, 
functioned during this period, and held nine meetings. 

216  Input  from Portugal  for the 2022 Rule of  Law Report,  p. 27. See also 2021 Rule of  Law  Report,  Country 
Chapter on the rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 17, and 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the 
rule of law situation in Portugal, p. 13.  

217  Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 47/2022, of 30 May. 

21 

 
                                                 
combat the pandemic, which were prepared by the State of Emergency Monitoring Structure, 
coordinated by the Ministry of Interior218. These reports were subject to debate and approval 
in  Parliament.  The  Constitutional  Court219,  as  well  as  ordinary  courts,  were  also  called  to 
review emergency measures. In particular, the Supreme Administrative Court decided on four 
appeals  referring  to  COVID-19-related  measures,  dismissing  all  the  claims220.  The 
Ombudsperson, besides responding to numerous complaints related to emergency measures, 
also undertook sectorial studies on issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic221, including on 
the  legal  basis  for  the  adoption  of  exceptional  measures  to  fight  the  pandemic  under  the 
constitutional framework222. The studies’ results led the Government to establish a working 
group,  entrusted  with  the  task  of  preparing  legislation  for  the  adoption  of  exceptional 
measures. The group delivered a draft bill to the Government in November 2021, which was 
not discussed in Parliament due to its dissolution223. 

On  1  January  2022,  Portugal  had  17  leading  judgments  of  the  European  Court  of 
Human  Rights  pending  implementation224.  While  Portugal’s  rate  of  leading  judgments 
from the past 10 years that remain pending was at that time at 41%, the average time that the 
judgments  have  been  pending  implementation  was  3  years  and  10  months225.  The  oldest 
leading  judgment,  pending  implementation  for  11  years,  concerns  the  fairness  of  criminal 
proceedings226.  On  1  July  2022,  the  number  of  leading  judgments  pending  implementation 
has decreased to 15227. 

The internal structure of the Office of the Ombudsperson has been reformed in order to 
better  reflect  its  mandate.  The  Ombudsperson  is  accredited  with  ‘A’  status  by  the  UN 
Global  Alliance  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (GANHRI)228.  In  2021,  the 
Government adopted a new Act on the Ombudsperson’s Office229 to reform the structure of 

218  Input from Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 27. 
219  Contribution from the Conference of European Constitutional Courts for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 
24-27. The availability of judicial review of emergency measures, including by the Constitutional Court, is 
an  important  guarantee,  in  line  with  European  standards  (Venice  Commission,  Interim  Report  on  the 
measures taken in the EU member States as a result of the Covid-19 crisis and their impact on democracy, 
the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights (CDL-AD(2020)018-e), paras. 77 and 78). 

220  Information received from the Supreme Administrative Court in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
221  Covering three areas: the situation of the homeless; the implications of the pandemic in education; and the 

impact of the pandemic at the level of the rule of law. 

222  Contribution  from  the  European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (ENNHRI)  for  the  2022 

Rule of Law Report, p. 433. 

223  Contribution  from  the  European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (ENNHRI)  for  the  2022 

Rule of Law Report, p. 429. 

224  The adoption of necessary execution  measures  for a  judgment by the European  Court of Human  Rights is 
supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It is the Committee’s practice to group 
cases against a State requiring similar execution measures, particularly general measures, and examine them 
jointly. The first case in the group is designated as the leading case as regards the supervision of the general 
measures and repetitive cases within the group can be closed when it is assessed that all possible individual 
measures needed to provide redress to the applicant have been taken. 

225  All figures are calculated by the European Implementation Network and are based on the number of cases 
that  are  considered  pending  at  the  annual  cut-off  date  of  1  January  2022.  See  the  Contribution  from  the 
European Implementation Network for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 64. 

226  Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 5 July 2011, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal, 19808/08, 

pending implementation since 2011. 

227  Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC). 
228  Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) 

(2017), Accreditation Report – November 2017. 

229  Decree-Law No. 80/2021, of 6 October. 

22 

 
                                                 
the  supporting  services  to  the  Ombudsperson  and  better  ensure  compliance  with  the  Paris 
Principles230. The legislation was subject  to  an extensive consultation  process,  in  which the 
Ombudsperson  was  actively  involved231.  The  new  organisation  explicitly  reflects  two 
dimensions  of its mandate, namely its work on  the National  Human Rights  Institutions  and 
the  National  Preventive  Mechanism  under  the  Optional  Protocol  to  the  Convention  against 
Torture  and Other Cruel,  Inhuman or Degrading Treatment  or Punishment232. The new Act 
formalises  the  existence  of  three  new  departments  that  add  up  to  the  existing  Complaints 
Unit,  which  was  also  re-structured.  The  new  departments  have  specific  competences  in  the 
fields  of  prevention  against  torture,  international  relations  and  development  of  studies  and 
projects233. A new triage unit has also been established, which is expected to help deal with 
the  increasing  number  of  complaints  in  an  efficient  manner234.  Although  the  number  of 
recommendations  pending  follow-up  increased  in  2021235,  it  is  reported  that  the  practice 
confirms the complete respect regarding the independence and integrity of the Ombudsperson 
institution in the performance of its duties, and that there are no systematic threats, forms of 
harassment or intimidation to the Ombudsperson’s heads and staff236. However, there is still 
no  focal  point  in  Parliament  which  would  facilitate  swift  follow-up  on  the  Ombudsperson 
recommendations to Parliament237. 

Civil  society  space  remains  open,  despite  certain  challenges.  The  civil  society  space 
continues  to  be  considered  to  be  open238.  Whereas,  in  the  course  of  2021,  restrictions  on 
rights  and  freedoms  were  imposed  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  these  resulted  from 
general  measures,  not  ones  targeting  specifically  human  rights  defenders  or  civil  society 
organisations (CSOs)239. CSOs continue to be actively involved in Government initiatives, in 
particular  in  the  areas  of  civic  participation  and  gender  equality240.  However,  isolated  acts 
against CSOs active in the support of minorities continue to occur241. In December 2021, the 
UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent urged the Government to adopt 
effective measures to prevent reprisals against anti-racism human rights defenders242. In this 
context,  it  is  to  be  noted  that,  in  July  2021,  the  Government  approved  the  National  Plan 
Against  Racism  and  Discrimination,  which  had  been  prepared  with  CSOs243.  CSOs  also 

230  Contribution  from  the  European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (ENNHRI)  for  the  2022 

Rule of Law Report, p. 426. 

231  Input from Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 27 and 28. 
232  Input from Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 27. 
233  Contribution  from  the  European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (ENNHRI)  for  the  2022 

Rule of Law Report, p. 426. 

234  Information received from the Office of the Ombudsperson in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
235  Input from Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 28. 
236  Information received  from the  Office  of the Ombudsperson in the context of the country  visit to Portugal; 
Contribution  from  the  European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (ENNHRI)  for  the  2021 
Rule of Law Report, p. 425. See also Venice Commission, Principles on the Protection and Promotion of the 
Ombudsman Institution (‘The Venice Principles’), CDL-AD(2019)005, para 24. 

237  Contribution  from  the  European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (ENNHRI)  for  the  2022 

Rule of Law Report, p. 427. 

238  Rating by CIVICUS; ratings are on a five-category scale defined as: open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed 

and closed. 

239  Contribution  from  the  European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (ENNHRI)  for  the  2022 

Rule of Law Report, p. 426. 

240  Input from Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, Annex A. 
241  Contribution from Front Line Defenders for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 5. 
242  Contribution from the UN Human Rights Regional Office for Europe  – Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law 

Report, p. 2. 

243  Input from Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 31. 

23 

 
                                                 
continue to  face challenges related to  the availability of public and private funding  and the 
reduced diversity of funding sources244. The dissolution of Parliament following the rejection 
of the 2022 state budget sparked concerns of delays in the allocation of funding to CSOs245.  

Several initiatives to foster a rule of law culture are ongoing. The Government is leading 
initiatives for the promotion of a rule of law culture aimed at high school students, integrated 
in  the  National  Strategy  for  Civic  Education246,  and  specific  information  campaigns  have 
been  developed  to  improve  the  understanding  of  the  functioning  of  the  justice  system247. 
Moreover,  Parliament  approved  new  legislation  in  the  field  of  preventing  and  combating 
corruption,  which  will  reinforce  specific  training  in  schools  on  issues  of  civic  participation 
and the rule of law248. The parliament is also cooperating with the Ministry of Education and 
the  Regional  Governments  of  Azores  and  Madeira  in  the  ‘Young  People’s  Parliament’ 
initiative,  which  aims  to  promote  the  interest  of  young  people  in  civic  and  political 
participation  and  to  publicise  the  significance  of  parliamentary  representation  and  its 
decision-making process249.  

244  Contribution  from  the  European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (ENNHRI)  for  the  2022 

Rule of Law Report, p. 426. 

245  CIVICUS, Country profile – Portugal. 
246  Input from Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 32. 
247  Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Portugal. 
248  Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 41. 
249  Information received from the Services of the  Assembly of Republic in the context of the country visit to 

Portugal. 

24 

 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2022 Rule of Law report 
can  be  found  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2022-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-
consultation_en. 

Bar Association (2021), Press release of 20 September 2021. 

Bar Association (2019), Opinion of 23 December 2019. 

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2021),  Media  pluralism  monitor  2021  –  country 
report on Portugal. 

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2022),  Media  pluralism  monitor  2022  –  country 
report on Portugal. 

CEPEJ (2020), Country profile Portugal – Scoreboard. 

Civicus (2022), Monitor tracking civic space – Portugal https://monitor.civicus.org/country/portugal/. 

Conference of European Constitutional Courts (2022), Contribution from the Conference of European 
Constitutional Courts for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Constitutional Court, judgment of 15 February 2022, No. 133/2022, Case No. 180/2022. 

Council for the Prevention of Corruption (2020), Recommendation - Prevention of Corruption Risks 
and Related Infringements as part of the response measures to the pandemic outbreak of COVID-19. 

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (2022), Contribution from the Council of Bars and Law 
Societies of Europe (CCBE) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2018),  H46-20  Vicente  Cardoso  group  v.  Portugal 
(Application  No.  30130/10)  –  Supervision  of  the  execution  of  the  European  Court’s  judgments 
CM/Del/Dec(2018)1331/H46-20. 

Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2021), Decision CM/Del/Dec(2021)1411/H46-25. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2000),  Recommendation  No.  R(2000)21  of  the 
Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe  on  the  freedom  of  exercise  of  the  profession  of 
lawyer. 

Council of Europe: Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) (2021), Opinion No. 24 (2021) 
on the evolution of the Councils for the Judiciary and their role in independent and impartial judicial 
systems. 

Council of Europe:  Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) (2007), Opinion No. 10 (2007) 
to  the  attention  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe  on  the  Council  for  the 
Judiciary at the service of society, of 23 November 2007. 

Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  – 
Portugal https://fom.coe.int/en/alerte?years=2022&typeData=1&time=1653914309287. 

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2020),  Interim  Report  on  the  measures  taken  in  the  EU 
member States as a result of the Covid-19 crisis and their impact on democracy, the Rule of Law and 
Fundamental Rights (CDL-AD(2020)018-e). 

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2019),  Principles  on  the  Protection  and  Promotion  of  the 
Ombudsman Institution (‘The Venice Principles’), CDL-AD(2019)005. 

Council of the European Union (2021), Council implementing decision (10149/21) on the approval of 
the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Portugal, 6 July 2021. 

25 

 
Council of the European Union (2021), Annex to the Council Implementing Decision on the approval 
of the assessment of the recovery and resilience plan for Portugal. 

Court  of  Audit  (2021),  Risks  in  the  use  of  public  resources  in  the  management  of  emergencies 
(COVID-19). 

Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2019),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2022),  Flash  Eurobarometer  507:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Special Eurobarometer 523: corruption. 

ERC (2022), Press release of 12 January 2022. 

European  Association  of  Judges  (2022),  Contribution  from  the  European  Association  of  Judges  for 
the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Portugal. 

European Commission (2021), 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Portugal. 

European Commission (2021), EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European Commission (2022), EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 5 July 2011, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal, 19808/08. 

European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  judgment  of  11  January  2022,  Freitas  Rangel  v.  Portugal, 
78873/13. 

European Implementation Network (2022), Contribution from the European Implementation Network 
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (2022), Contribution from the European Network of 
Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (2022),  Contribution  from  the  European 
Network of National Human Rights Institutions for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Expresso  (2022),  ‘Ministry  of  Justice  distances  itself  from  the  law  on  judicial  impediments’ 
(‘Ministério 
juízes’) 
da 
https://expresso.pt/sociedade/2022-03-21-Ministerio-da-Justica-demarca-se-da-lei-de-impedimentos-
dos-juizes-22834751.  

impedimentos 

demarca-se 

Justiça 

dos 

da 

lei 

de 

Front  Line  Defenders  (2022),  Contribution  from  Front  Line  Defenders  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law 
Report. 

GRECO  (2021),  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Second  Interim  Compliance  Report  on  Portugal  on 
preventing corruption in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. 

GRECO  (2019),  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Interim  compliance  report  on  Portugal  on  preventing 
corruption in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. 

High Council for the Administrative and Tax Courts (2021), Annual Report 2020. 

High Council for the Judiciary (2022), Plenary Decision of 8 March 2022. 

High Council for the Judiciary (2021), Public Notice No 220/2021, of 9 November 2021. 

26 

 
(2021),  Gestão  dos  Riscos  na  Contratação  Pública. 
IGF,  Autoridade  de  Auditoria 
https://www.igf.gov.pt/aigf/primeirapagina/IGF_91_Anos_Gestao_dos_Riscos_na_Contratacao_Publi
ca.pdf 

Journalists’ Professional License Committee (2022), Press release of 12 January 2022. 

Journalists’ Professional License Committee (2021), Complaint to the President of the Republic and 
to the Ombudsperson of 30 June 2021. 

Journalists Union (2022), Press release of 10 February 2022. 

Journalists Union (2022), Press release of 3 January 2022.  

Journalists Union (2021), Press release of 30 June 2021. 

Magistrats  Européens  pour  la  Démocracie  et  les  Libertés  (2022),  Contribution  from  Magistrats 
Européens pour la Démocracie et les Libertés (MEDEL) – Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Ministry  of  Justice  (2022),  Staff  map  https://dgpj.justica.gov.pt/Instrumentos-de-Gestao/Mapa-de-
pessoal.  

of 

Ministry 
Press 
https://justica.gov.pt/Noticias/Plataformas-tecnologicas-Magistratus-e-MP-Codex-avancam-nos-
tribunais.  

February 

(2022), 

release 

Justice 

of 

4 

2022 

OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media (2022), Press Release of 13 January 2022. 

Portuguese Government (2022), Input from Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Portuguese Government (2020), National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2020-2024. 

Portuguese Government – Council of Ministers (2021), Resolution No. 143/2021. 

President of the Republic (2021), Press release of 29 July 2021. 

Público (2022), ‘Courts in risk of rupture for lack of clerks’. 

Público (2021), ‘DCIAP director pressures Government and criticises lack of resources’. 

Reporters without Borders – Portugal https://rsf.org/en/country/portugal.  

RTP (2021), 2020 Financial Statement Report. 

Statista  (2021),  SMEs  in  Portugal  2021,  by  size,  https://www.statista.com/statistics/880031/number-
of-smes-in-portugal/.    

Supreme Court of Justice, judgment of 14 July 2021, Case No. 15/21.5YFLSB-A. 

Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2022. 

United Nations Human Rights Regional Office for Europe (2022), Contribution from the UN Human 
Rights Regional Office for Europe on Portugal for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Working Group on Administrative and Tax Courts (2021), First Interim Report of 23 November 2021 
https://justica.gov.pt/Noticias/Justica-administrativa-e-fiscal-com-maior-capacidade-de-
resposta#:~:text=Entre%20o%20conjunto%20de%20medidas%20que%20t%C3%AAm%20contribu
%C3%ADdo,digital%20e%20orientada%20para%20a%20simplifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20e%20r
acionaliza%C3%A7%C3%A3o.  

Working  Group  on  Administrative  and  Tax  Courts  (2022),  Second  Interim  Report  of  21  February 
2022  https://www.portugal.gov.pt/pt/gc22/comunicacao/comunicado?i=apresentacao-do-2-relatorio-
intercalar-do-grupo-de-trabalho-dos-tribunais-administrativos-e-fiscais.  

27 

 
 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Portugal 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in March and April 2022 with: 

Inspectorate-General of Finance 
Journalists’ Professional License Committee  
Journalists Union  
Judges Union 

  Bar Association 
  Central Department of criminal action and investigation (DCIAP) 
  Constitutional Court 
  Council for the Prevention of Corruption  
  Court of Audit 
  High Council for the Administrative and Tax Courts 
  High Council for Public Prosecution 
  High Council for the Judiciary 
 
 
 
 
  Media Authority – Regulatory Entity for Social Communication 
  Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
  Ministry of Justice 
  Observatory of Economy and Fraud Management  
  Office of the Prosecutor General 
  Office of the Ombudsperson 
  Platform of NGOD 
  Prosecutors Union 
  Secretariat General of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers 
  Services of the Assembly of the Republic 
  Supreme Administrative Court 
  Supreme Court of Justice 
  Transparency International – Portugal  
  Union of Judicial Administrative Officials 
  UTAIL - Technical Unit for Legislative Impact Assessment 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International  
  Article 19  
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom  
  European Civic Forum 
  European Federation of Journalists  
  European Partnership for Democracy 
  European Youth Forum 
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Human Rights Watch  
 
 
 
  Open Society European Policy Institute (OSEPI) 
  Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa  
  Philea 
  Reporters Without Borders 

ILGA Europe 
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) 
International Press Institute 

28 

 
 
  Transparency International Europe 

29